More on Rove's selection of Dean as the 2004 Opponent

[Must_B_Free]

from today (7-9)

"Speaking of Operation Iraqi Freedom, will we be witness to more anti-war protests from so-called pacifists (you know, the ones who attack police officers and trash McDonalds) who do not wish to see our troops placed in harm's way? We see further examples of irony at work as evidenced by Howard Dean's position that we should send troops into Liberia. So while Dean opposed intervention in Iraq to force an evil dictator to comply with international law, he favors this intervention? Charles Taylor is not seen as a threat to the security of the United States. He does not appear to have any ties to terrorism. Taylor is just an evil warlord involved in genocide. So where does Janeane Garofalo, Mike Farrell, and Martin Sheen stand on intervention in Liberia? Will Hollywood and the anti-war left denounce Howard Dean for his recent flip-flop? Will they flip-flop? Stay tuned..."

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/jul_news_pages/g_070903_alvarez_usa_nice.htm

I think they are picking on the fact that Dean is the leading Democratic candidate and is a Republican Lite, apparently.

[w4rma]

1. Rove didn't "pick" Dean.

Rove's plan of attack for All Democratic nominees is to paint them as liberal whackos on any position that differs from Bush's (as if Bush's wasn't a right wing whacko position).

It is my understanding that Dean's position on Iraq was that we needed the UN's support on Iraq and that we shouldn't go in without it.

Dean's position on Liberia is here. Note that I agree with Dean's position on Liberia:
...
"I would urge the president to tie our commitment to assist in this multilateral effort to an appeal to the world to join us in the work that remains to be done in Iraq," Dean said.

Dean called for a short-term deployment of roughly 2,000 U.S. troops as part of an international effort to stabilize the African nation.

"We could stabilize the situation and remain in Liberia for no more than several months, at which time a U.N. peacekeeping mission could be deployed to oversee a period of transition," he said.
...
"The situation in Liberia is significantly different from the situation in Iraq," he said.
...
"The situation in Liberia is exactly the opposite," Dean said. "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/02/national1844EDT0740.DTL

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. GOOD somebody understands this

we can nomiaate Adolph Hitler and he is a leftie ok.

Thsi also means you need to speak about this with those you know to counteract the effectiveness of the message...

[laconicsax]

2. It's so simple...

"Taylor is just an evil warlord involved in genocide."

It's only genocide after all. God forbid he buys WMDs from the US in the 80s and doesn't have them any more.

[JackSwift]

4. Taylor has requested an intevention

That makes it a big difference, doesn't it? Taylor has asked for international troops to come in and keep the peace and he will accept exile. That doesn't make Dean a Republican Lite so much as someone who can tell the difference, which is more than can be said for those who can't tell the difference.

[revcarol]

5. Maybe Pat Robertson can buy Taylor a mansion...

then they can get together in comfort and discuss their riches.

Dean's positions are very sketchy. He is still seen as a peace candidate although he wanted to do a pre-emptive war in Iraq, but only if we had allies? It's OK for U. S. troops to go into Liberia followed by peacekeepers for humanitarian reasons but we should just let people in the Congo kill each other?I'm sure a Deanie will tell me where I am all wet, but his positions just are not clear. If the UN should be the peacekeepers in Iraq, why not just say so? Or does he want NATO troops, or coalition troops as peacekeepers, or mercenaries (3rd world troops) paid for by the U. S.?

IMHO, Rove IS putting doubts in our minds about Dean, but, of course, that is to be expected.Maybe we should look at ALL the candidates more thoroughly to see them in detail. THANK YOU, ROVE, IF THIS LEADS TO DEMOCRATIC INTEREST AND EDUCATING OURSELVES ABOUT THE CANDIDATES.

[Quahog]

7. The way I understand it

I don't find Dean's position sketchy on Iraq at all, and never have. It was a fairly mainstream position among Dems, and I believe it still is. He said that IF we had the agreement of the international community (UN, NATO) AND their real support in terms of troop commitments, that we should go in and topple Saddam. This makes him neither "the peace candidate" nor "the war candidate," but perhaps rather "the conventional wisdom candidate." A critical element of his position which is not made explicit in his statement is that the ONLY way we would have had that kind of support and commitment from our allies would have been if our intelligence regarding Iraq had been conclusive. If it had proven that Saddam was stockpiling bio and chem weapons and developing nukes, heck, I would have supported an invasion by an international coalition. But there never was any proof, because there weren't any weapons or programs, so the international community did not get on board, so we shouldn't have gone in. I don't think this position is especially nuanced, it seems like common sense to me.

In Liberia, he's saying that there's a humanitarian crisis brought on by the same kind of civil unrest that we saw in Bosnia, with the added advantage that the country's president has volunteered to step aside and has requested the help of the international community to stabilize the situation. Again, if we have the full cooperation of the UN, why would we not answer this plea for help, unless our military has simply been stretched too thin by our Iraq commitment?

I have no idea what Dean's position on Congo is. I can't imagine why he would have a different position on Congo than he has on Liberia, unless there are significant differences in the two scenarios. Which there probably are... I don't know, I don't pretend to be any sort of an expert on African politics.

[CWebster]

9. Yeah, take it from Rove.

Dean has always made his position clear. He would support multilateral military action IF there was undeniable evidence of clear and present threat.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[deutsey]

6. Oh, there you go, letting facts get in the way

Seriously, the url for this post should be "bullshitcountry.org" not "bushcountry.org" :puke:

[CWebster]

8. Humanitarian peacekeeping requested

A multilateral effort in which the US would participate

not quite the same.